Hi, Everybody!
Here's part Two of Dave's
Commentary on"The Genesis Question". The Word file I have this in, is 368 pages long. The first installment was the first 5 pages. Which means this might run for 90-some weeks. So in lieu of putting links here for all the parts, I've created a new label "Genesis Question", so at the bottom of each post it'll say: "
Labels: Bible Commentaries, Dave Sim (Exclusive), Genesis Question, Religion" If you click the Genesis Question one, you'll get all of these posts. AND NOW YOU KNOW...
1 April 18
Hi Matt!
You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…
9 February 14
Hi Troy and Mia:
The next Biblical reference in The
Genesis Question is to1 Thessalonians 5:21 regarding which Mr. Ross
informs we, his readers, that "the apostle Paul exhorted his readers to
'test everything'. The 1611 KJV has it
as
Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good.
The Interlinear has it as
all ____s however be you proving, the fine
____ be you holding down
It seems to me to be more apparent in the
sense conveyed by the original Koine Greek that this is a small part in a
larger thought or series of thoughts, whereas in the KJV translation it has,
again, that "fortune cookie" quality to it. One fortune cookie fortune in a short list of
fortune cookie fortunes which does appear to begin with one of Paul's
characteristic exhortations:
Now, we exhort (alternative
marginal meaning: beseech) you, brethren, warn them that are unruly (alternative
marginal meaning: disorderly), comfort the feeble minded, support the weak,
be patient toward all men. Rejoice evermore: pray without ceasing, In
everything give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning
you. Quench not the spirit, Despise not
prophesyings (my spellcheck doesn't accept the KJV's plural form which is a
good point: it should be "prophecies" although
"prophesyings" as a coined term does convey a differently nuanced
meaning) Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The Interlinear has it as
We are encouraging however you, brothers,
be you putting mind in the disorderly, be you consoling the ones of little
soul, be you holding selves against the weak, be you having longness of spirit
toward all. Be you seeing not anyone bad
___ in place of bad ___ to anyone he might give back, but always the good ____
be you pursuing into one another and into all.
Always be you rejoicing.
Incessantly be you praying, in everything be you giving thanks this for
will of God in Christ Jesus into you.
The spirit not be you extinguishing, prophecies not be you treating as
nothing; all however be you proving, the fine be you holding down, from every
seen of wicked be you holding yourselves from.
As seems to me to be always the case with
Paul's commentaries, what he is actually saying is pretty incoherent, open to
any one of a number of interpretations. It's "happy talk". He's really, really happy about Christ Jesus
and he wants you to know that. What he's
saying specifically…well…Paul is not really big on specificity.
You can certainly translate "be you
putting mind in the disorderly" as "warn them that are unruly".
But you could also, I think, just as successfully -- or more successfully
-- translate it as "identify with the disorderly" or "project
your thoughts into the disorderly" or "empathize with the
disorderly" or "try to understand the disorderly". You could also translate it as "help
the disorderly to think" or "give your best thoughts to the
disorderly" or "keep the disorderly in your thoughts". All of which constitute "happy
talk" and still allow for all of the other meanings cited.
I think this was intentional: that Paul was selected by God specifically
for this conversational and expressive quirk.
He never quite says anything specifically but everything that he says is
very, very happy and can be translated any one of a hundred happy ways. Which means his words are like a Rorschach
inkblot test for each listener and each translator. Pick the happy thought that he conveys to you
and the thought you pick will tell you -- and God -- something about
yourself. And allow you to become your
own version of Paul, conveying your own "happy talk" to others
through what you heard. I think if you
lined up all of the translations of "be you putting mind in the disorderly"
over the last two thousand years, what you would see is a progression of
ever-more positive and every more cheerful inferences. It could as easily have gone the other
way. "Impose your will on the
disorderly" or "bend the disorderly to your will through your
superior mind".
And I think THAT was intentional: that God was illustrating for His adversary,
YHWH, that His adversary's foundational view of men -- "the imagination of
man's heart, evil from his youth" -- was and is misapprehended. If it were otherwise then it would stand to
reason everyone exposed to the serious incoherence and serious ambiguity of
Paul's words would err in inferring evil meanings from Paul's "happy
talk". And that this would worsen
as his "happy talk" spread and was subjected to translations and
translations of translations.
I don't mean "happy talk" as a
pejorative. It was very efficacious, a
central reason that Christianity spread like wildfire across the Greek and
Roman worlds. "Happy talk" was
in very short supply, particularly in the dominant modes of thinking and belief
-- Roman law and Greek philosophy -- in the seminal world of Christianity's
origins.
It didn't make your head hurt (provided you
didn't examine it too closely or attempt to make it adhere to accepted rules of
intellectual discourse). It could -- and
did -- incite joy and Joy in those inclined in those directions and amendable
to them. "Be not afraid";
"be of good cheer". Cheer up,
basically.
I'll try not to further belabour the point
of the wide spectrum of meanings allowed for by Paul's "happy
talk". I think the literal
translations of "be you consoling the ones of little soul"; "be
you holding selves against the weak"; "be you having longness of
spirit toward all"; "the fine be you holding down" speak for
themselves in terms of incoherence, allowing for both good and bad inferences
(particularly "be you holding selves against the weak").
It seems to me an implicit small irony that
Mr. Ross cites Paul's incoherent ambiguities as a foundation for his goal of
"proving" his own theses.
Anyway, on to the book itself:
CHAPTER ONE A PERSONAL JOURNEY
"I understood that the big bang meant
an expanding, "exploding" universe.
I agreed with Einstein that an exploding universe can be traced back to
an explosion, a beginning."
I agree with "expanding" but I've
definitely come to disagree with "exploding". Not that the term isn't forensically accurate
in human frames of reference. Anything
expanding that far and that fast is, by definition, "explosive".
But it seems to me to be naturally
infected…and inflected…with our mental image of earthly explosions -- largely
haphazard acts of concentrated and largely destructive violence.
As I explained in THE LAST DAY, I think
that's true of our sun and of stars, generally, insofar as, it seems to me,
that they are imperfect, failed attempts to duplicate the big bang.
All the same elements are present in the
big bang and in the birth of a star. The
difference is that the big bang was engineered by God, who knew what He was
doing, and each star is an attempt by His creations to duplicate that
engineering feat and they don't know what they're doing while maintaining that
they do know what they're doing: to the
extent that they believe themselves to be co-equivalent with God.
It seems to me a seminal point of the
physical universe itself -- the answer to the question "Why?" that
science long ago left off trying to answer (as Stephen Hawking said, "I
know what the universe is doing, I just don't know why it's doing it")
-- God having proved definitively that
only He is God because anyone else claiming to be God or God's equivalent can
only prove it by causing another big bang and umpty-ump billions of years later
have failed to do so even once.
The fact that there has been no big bang since
the big bang -- that there is only evidence of a singular event -- rather
proves God's point, I think.
The difference, it seems to me, is that the
big bang wasn't an explosion. If it had
been an explosion, it would have turned into a star -- as all subsequent
big-bang-modelled-events-in-the-universe have done -- instead of being the
source of the entire outwardly expanding physical universe.
That is, like each star or binary star we
can see, the "not big bang" would have expanded only so far and then
its own gravitational force would have collapsed it in upon itself into a
roughly spheroid shape of inchoate nuclear force, matter and energy that would
burn for a few billion years before collapsing into a black hole.
"In the physics of the universe I saw
harmony and consistency, perfection, freedom from contradiction, a pervading
beauty and an elegance of design."
Yes, I would agree with
"perfection" if what you are talking about is the entirety of the
universe and only to the extent that the universe is God's Point, God's
Argument physically incarnated and physically constituted.
It is a perfect construct illustrating,
irrefutably, that only God and only God's work is perfect.
"Harmony and consistency", well, yes
but containing the unharmonious and the inconsistent by way of illustrating the
fact of their nature -- "you perceive yourself to be harmonious and
consistent but, by means of the big bang, I have illustrated to you that you
are unharmonious and inconsistent" -- to themselves. The big bang was and is the perfect way to do
that. Think how far away from the big
bang we are and how much of its effects we can see with the unaided eye. Even the largest galaxy -- that is, the
"least failed" attempt to duplicate the big bang -- is minuscule in
comparison. God's QED.
Likewise "freedom from
contradiction". The big bang was
free from contradiction which is why it kept -- and keeps -- going, outward
bound. All else IS contradiction, a
hatching out of contradiction, from suns to planets to comets to asteroids to
moons to…us. Which is what I think when
I read Mr. Ross' earlier comment:
"Millions of people through the ages
have lived and died by their 'holy books'.
But if all the holy books came from the same source and said pretty much
the same thing, as my teachers suggested, why did the followers of each book
criticize, condemn and even kill the followers of the others? I began to suspect that all religions were
humanly crafted fronts for people's psychological desire to dominate
others."
Well, yes, for the same reason that our sun
didn't turn into the "next big bang".
"All have fallen short of the glory of God." Even the consciousness and sensibility that
existed at the time of the birth of our sun -- the most geographically
proximate event to us attempting to duplicate the big bang -- was contradictory. However much it got right -- and producing a
large spheroid nuclear fire that will burn for 15 billion years is quite a feat
of engineering in its own right -- it was either mostly wrong or partially
wrong or sufficiently wrong to fail in its avowed purpose: to make a big bang and so prove that
consciousness and sensibility in nearest proximity to us to be "Like
God".
I would infer that motivation has a lot to
do with it. God didn't, I don't think,
create the big bang out of a "psychological desire to dominate
others". He's God and there is none
Like Him. But He realized that many of
His seminal creations didn't -- and still don't -- "get" this. The big bang was the perfect way to settle
the argument. "If you're God, make
one of these." Each failed attempt
confirms God's Point. God a) came out here with us and b) He was always out
here. He is, by definition,
omnipresent. That doesn't mean that He
prevails everywhere and at all times.
His Spirit informs our holy books, but, just as the sun is an imperfect
attempt to duplicate His big bang, so our holy books are imperfect syntheses of
His word and -- I would assume -- the consciousness and sensibility that He
created and which is the Largest Entity in direct cosmological proximity to
us. The awareness that pretended to be
God or Like God and attempted to make a big bang and just made another
medium-sized yellow star. It's only in
our own neighbourhood but it does have a large presence here, relatively
speaking.
I think it sensible to assume that that
consciousness and sensibility inhabits -- or "inhabits" or
inhabits/"inhabits" the sun.
Has that consciousness and sensibility repented of its blasphemy? No idea.
I'm not sure it even knew how it got all the way out here or even that
it was just another example of all the other failed experiments it could see
around it in the heavens. That is, I
don't know that the sun even knew that it was just another star until we
figured out it for it. Which would be a
really humiliating way to find out about your own reality if you think about it. These little insect like creatures crawling
around on a tiny chunk of rock 93 million miles away FIGURED OUT SOMETHING I
HAD NO CLUE ABOUT!
Likewise the centre of the earth, earth's
molten core, I think partakes of that sensibility and consciousness. I think that's what the YHWH is -- a little
"sun" in the middle of our nondescript chunk of rock.
I think if you're looking for the origin
point of the "psychological desire to dominate others", that's where you need to start looking. I think that's the imperfection built in to
all the failed experiments. God created
the big bang to establish the Verity of His Absolute Preeminence. Not to dominate anyone or anything, but just
to make sure that Verity was maintained -- however corrupted it would become by
lesser beings.
All of the suns and galaxies and solar
systems were created, I think I'm safe in saying, from the "psychological
desire to dominate others": that
each wanted to prove they were God -- and only desired to be God because it
looked like fun to be better than everyone else -- and failed to do so in no
small part because domination is an unworthy motive.
Writing about Genesis, Mr. Ross writes:
"Most impressive of all, the four
initial conditions and the sequence of major creation events -- not just one or
two, but more than a dozen -- all matched the established scientific
record."
Well, yes, of course. The sun was a failed experiment to recreate
the big bang, but that didn't mean it was a complete failure. The same centrifugal force that hurled the
proto-sun and its consciousness/sensibility out into this particular suburb to
make its own attempt to create a big bang, free from external interference and
influence -- the chance to prove its "Godhood" in a pristine context
-- enacted itself and created the proto-planets. I'm sure it's all the same recipe and I'm
sure it's very basic. That, too, it
seems to me was God's Point. "Here,
I'm going to take this, this, this, this and this. Now I'm going to balance them. A specific mixture of each one -- strong
nuclear force, weak nuclear force, matter, energy. Now watch." Big bang. One minute the
consciousnesses/sensibilities were watching God's balancing act and the next
minute they were being hurled outward within a state of Universal Light at
nearly unimaginable speed and spinning at unimaginable speed.
That's what was so enticing. The answer is there. But not one of them has been able to imitate
it.
Human beings are, it seems to me, a good
example of a consolation prize. You
didn't produce a big bang, but you did produce this little chunk of rock which
is pretty meticulously balanced. Not big
bang balanced, but balanced enough that you created water (which is no mean
trick: it requires nearly perfect balance of hydrogen and oxygen which are
pretty unstable stage props). With water
you made sentient beings possible and not only sentient beings but sentient
beings which incarnate as being pretty close to balanced. Women are, generally, smaller than men but in
cosmological terms, we are pretty close to the same size. God and his immediate local counterpart, the
YHWH, were now able to have a discussion through these proxies. Millennia-long, repetitive, reiterative,
circular and largely pointless (completely pointless in terms of what God could
get out of it), but at least a discussion.
Genesis just documents the enactment of
that discussion. Here is how the
discussion goes on a water planet. Human
beings having been made possible -- (long after the first iterations, things
like the dinosaurs which were functional but hardly constituted a discussion)
-- God incarnates Adam and then creates Chaua (Eve) out of Adam. And everything unfolds from there, everything
is an enactment that follows logically and sequentially as a means of
explaining the nature of the imperfection of God's creations to those imperfect
creations, by means of a perfect enactment.
The mere fact of how the sun turned out -- that it wasn't a binary star,
that it was yellow, that it was the size it was and that it "spun
off" the planets that it did in the size and order that it did, implied
how this epoch, as documented in Genesis, was going to enact itself.
"Eighteen months later I arrived at
Revelation 22 . During those months, I
had read every page and failed to discover anything I could honestly label an
error or contradiction."
Well, no. You wouldn't, would you? Like the sun and its
consciousness/sensibility, we are all imperfect enactments. That's what we're doing out here.
The best we can manage to do is to attempt
to understand the perfect imperfectly.
I'm pretty sure that's how God judges us.
In the same sense that the planets of our
solar system established the nature of the sun -- the sun could only produce
the planets it did if it had this specific nature -- so we enact our own part
of the larger enactment. We are all of
us children of Adam as Adam was a "child" of God and a child of the
earth, formed of the dust of the earth.
What we do and what we choose is who we
are.
Part of us comes from God and the
perfection of God's enactment and part of us comes from the incoherence of the
consciousness/sensibility that formed our sun and the planets. We will never become God or become Like
God. The best we can hope for is to
cohere and adhere as closely to the perfection of God's enactment and to keep
ourselves as far from the incoherence of that enactment that opposes God and
seeks to supplant Him as we are capable.
"I have done my duty as God gave me
the light to see that duty" as General MacArthur put it in his farewell
address to Congress. More accurate to
say, "I HOPE I have done my duty, etc.". Human imperfection being a given in any
context.
On to chapter two next week.
Best,
Dave
Next Time: Uh...chapter two... Dave just said so...
